[
Adidas AG [1999], ECJ, C-223/98, ECLI:EU:C:1999:500, 14.10.1999.10.1016/S0956-7135(99)00035-3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Asklepios Kliniken GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities [2007], ECJ, T-167/04, ECLI:EU:T:2007:215, 11.7.2007.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Becker, R.; Thorogood, A.; Ordish, J. & Beauvais, M. J. S. (2020), ‘COVID-19 research: Navigating the European General Data Protection Regulation,’ Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1–14. https://www.jmir.org/2020/8/e19799
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bodil Lindqvist [2003], ECJ, C-101/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:596, 6.11.2003.10.1016/S1351-4210(03)01131-4
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bradford, L.; Aboy, M. & Liddell, K. (2020), ‘COVID-19 contact tracing apps: A stress test for privacy, the GDPR, and data protection regimes,’ Journal of Law and the Biosciences, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa03410.1093/jlb/lsaa034731389332728470
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände – Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v. Planet49 GmbH [2019], ECJ, C-673/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:801, 1.10.2019.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Buttarelli, G. (2016), ‘The EU GDPR as a clarion call for a new global digital gold standard,’ International Data Privacy Law, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 77–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipw00610.1093/idpl/ipw006
]Search in Google Scholar
[
CJEU (n.d.), ‘Annual Report.’ Retrieved from https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7000/en/ [accessed 6 Feb 2021]
]Search in Google Scholar
[
CJEU (2019), Annual Report 2019: Judicial Activity. Retrieved from https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-05/qd-ap-20-001-en-n.pdf [accessed 6 Feb 2021]
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg [2001], ECJ, C-450/00, ECLI:EU:C:2001:519, 4.10.2001.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Damian, A. T. (2020), ‘Design principles for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A formal concept analysis and its evaluation,’ Information Systems, vol. 91, pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2019.10146910.1016/j.is.2019.101469
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, pp. 31–50.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, pp. 1–16.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (‘Directive on privacy and electronic communications’), OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, pp. 37–47.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, pp. 90–96.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, OJ L 88, 4.4.2011, pp. 45–65.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, pp. 89–131.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, pp. 132–149.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Directive (EU) 2019/770 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services, OJ L 136, 22.5.2019, pp. 1–27
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information, OJ L 172, 26.6.2019, pp. 56–83.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law, OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, pp. 17–56.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Doron, I. (2013), ‘Older Europeans and the European Court of Justice,’ Age and Ageing, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 604–608. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/aft05310.1093/ageing/aft05323669561
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ducato, R. (2020), ‘Data protection, scientific research, and the role of information,’ Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 37, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.10541210.1016/j.clsr.2020.105412
]Search in Google Scholar
[
European Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany [2010], ECJ, C-518/07, ECLI:EU:C:2010:125, 9.3.2010.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
European Commission v. Greece [2006], ECJ, C-475/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:362, 1.6.2006.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
European Commission v. Hungary [2014], ECJ, C-288/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:237, 8.4.2014.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
European Commission v. The Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd. [2010], ECJ, C-28/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2010:378, 29.6.2010.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
European Parliament v. Council of the European Union [2006], ECJ, joined cases C-317/04 and C-318/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:346, 30.5.2006.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fashion ID GmbH & Co. KG v. Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV [2019], ECJ, C-40/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:629, 29.7.2019.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
František Ryneš v. Úřadu pro ochranu osobních údajů [2014], ECJ, C-212/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2428, 11.12.2014.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
GC, AF, BH, ED v. Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés [2019], ECJ, C-136/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:773, 24.9.2019.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja González [2014], ECJ, C-131/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317, 13.5.2014.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hallinan, D. (2020) ‘Broad consent under the GDPR: An optimistic perspective on a bright future,’ Life Sciences, Society and Policy, vol. 16, art. 1, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-019-0096-310.1186/s40504-019-0096-3694389931903508
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland [2008], ECJ, C-524/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:724, 16.12.2008.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hu, P. & Wei, Q. (2020), ‘Research on personal data protection of EU General Data Protection Regulation,’ OP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 806, no. 1, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/806/1/01200310.1088/1757-899X/806/1/012003
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ireland v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2009], ECJ, C-301/06, ECLI:EU:C:2009:68, 10.2.2009.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Josef Probst v. mr.nexnet GmbH [2012], ECJ, C-119/12, ECLI:EU:C:2012:748, 22.11.2012.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kesa, A. & Kerikmäe, T. (2020), ‘Artificial intelligence and the GDPR: Inevitable nemeses?’ TalTech Journal of European Studies, vol. 10, no. 3(32), pp. 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2020-002210.1515/bjes-2020-0022
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lopes, H.; Pires, I. M.; Sánchez San Blas, H.; García-Ovejero, R. & Leithardt, V. (2020), ‘PriADA: Management and adaptation of information based on data privacy in public environments,’ Computers, vol. 9, no. 77, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers904007710.3390/computers9040077
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mazur, J. (2019), ‘Automated decision-making and the precautionary principle in EU law,’ Baltic Journal of European Studies, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2019-003510.1515/bjes-2019-0035
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Österreichischer Rundfunk, Wirtschaftskammer Steiermark, Marktgemeinde Kaltenleutgeben, Land Niederösterreich, Österreichische Nationalbank, Stadt Wiener Neustadt, Austrian Airlines, Österreichische Luftverkehrs AG, v. Christou Neukomm, Josephem Lauermannem [2003], ECJ, joined cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:294, 20.5.2003.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Patrick Breyer v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland [2016], ECJ, C-582/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:779, 9.10.2016.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Peter Nowak v. Data Protection Commissioner [2017], ECJ, C-434/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:994, 20.12.2017.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Peter Puškár v. Finančnému riaditeľstvu Slovenskej republiky, Kriminálnemu úradu finančnej správy [2017], ECJ, C-73/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:725, 27.9.2017.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pharmacontinente – Saúde e Higiene SA, Domingos Sequeira de Almeida, Luis Mesquita Soares Moutinho, Rui Teixeira Soares de Almeida, André de Carvalho e Sousa contre Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho (ACT) [2014], ECJ, C-683/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2028, 19.6.2014.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Politou, E.; Alepis, E. & Patsakis, C. (2018), ‘Forgetting personal data and revoking consent under the GDPR: Challenges and proposed solutions,’ Journal of Cybersecurity, vol. 4, no. 1, tyy001. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyy00110.1093/cybsec/tyy001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Proceedings against Tietosuojavaltuutettu [2018], ECJ, C-25/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:551,10.7.2018.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v. Telefónica de España SAU [2008], ECJ C-275/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:54, 29.1.2008.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Puljak, L.; Mladinić, A.; Iphofen, R. & Koporc, Z. (2020), ‘Before and after enforcement of GDPR: Personal data protection requests received by Croatian Personal Data Protection Agency from academic and research institutions,’ Biochemia Medica, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2020.03020110.11613/BM.2020.030201739425332774116
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Razmetaeva, Y. (2020), ‘The right to be forgotten in the European perspective,’ TalTech Journal of European Studies, vol. 10, no. 1(30), pp. 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2020-000410.1515/bjes-2020-0004
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Regulation (EC) no. 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, pp. 1–22.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, pp. 1–88.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Regulation (EU) 2018/1807 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on a framework for the free flow of non-personal data in the European Union, OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, pp. 59–68.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Regulation (EU) no. 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints, OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, pp. 1–30.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Safari, B. (2017), ‘Intangible privacy rights: How Europe’s GDPR will set a new global standard for personal data protection,’ Seton Hall Law Review, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 809–848.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Safe Interenvíos SA v. Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA [2016], ECJ, C-235/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:154, 10.3.2016.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sergejs Buivids v. Datu valsts inspekcija [2019], ECJ, C-345/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:122, 14.2.2019.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Smaranda Bara and others v. Președintele Casei Naționale de Asigurări de Sănătate, Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF) [2015], ECJ, C-201/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:638, 1.10.2015.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Szczepaniuk, E. K.; Szczepaniuk, H.; Rokicki, T. & Klepacki B. (2020), ‘Information security assessment in public administration,’ Computers & Security, vol. 90, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2019.10170910.1016/j.cose.2019.101709
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tahal, R. & Formánek, T. (2020), ‘Reflection of GDPR by the Czech population,’ Management & Marketing: Challenges for the Knowledge Society, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 78–94. https://doi.org/10.2478/mmcks-2020-000510.2478/mmcks-2020-0005
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tele2 Sverige AB v. Post- och telestyrelsen [2016], ECJ, joined cases C-203/15 and C-698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, 21.12.2016.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tietosuojavaltuutettu v. Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy, Satamedia Oy [2008], ECJ, C-73/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:727, 16.12.2008.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
TK v. Asociaiția de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA [2019], ECJ, C-708/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:1064, 11.12.2019.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Uusitalo, J. (2018), ‘Protecting economic interests or the right to life? Perception of the European Court of Justice on emergency medical services,’ TalTech Journal of European Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2018-001110.1515/bjes-2018-0011
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v. Rīgas pašvaldības SIA “Rīgas satiksme” [2017], ECJ, C-13/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:336, 4.5.2017.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ventrella, E. (2020), ‘Privacy in emergency circumstances: Data protection and the COVID-19 pandemic,’ ERA Forum, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 379–393.10.1007/s12027-020-00629-3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Amazon EU Sàrl [2016], ECJ, C-191/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:612, 28.7.2016.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Volker und Markus Schecke GbR, Hartmut Eifert v. Land Hessen [2010], ECJ, joined cases C-92/09 and C-93/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:662, 9.11.2010.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Waerdt, P. J. (2020), ‘Information asymmetries: Recognizing the limits of the GDPR on the data-driven market,’ Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 38, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.10543610.1016/j.clsr.2020.105436
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Weltimmo s. r. o. v. Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság [2015], ECJ, C-230/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:639, 1.10.2015.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wiedemann, K. (2020), ‘The ECJ’s decision in “Planet49” (case C-673/17): A cookie monster or much ado about nothing?’ IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 51, pp. 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00927-w10.1007/s40319-020-00927-w
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Worten – Equipamentos para o Lar SA v. Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho (ACT) [2013], ECJ, C-342/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:355, 30.5.2013.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
W. P. Willems v. Burgemeester van Nuth [2015], ECJ, cases C-446/12 to C-449/12, ECLI:EU:C:2015:238, 16.4.2015.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Y.S. v. Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel [2014], ECJ, joined cases C-141/12 and C-372/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2081, 17.7.2014.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zarsky, T. (2017), ‘Incompatible: The GDPR in the age of big data,’ Seton Hall Law Review, vol. 47, no. 4(2), pp. 995–1020.
]Search in Google Scholar
